Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Cristobell 14.05.14 14:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Cristobell wrote:It doesn't really matter how many times Smithman is mentioned in Kate's book,

I think we've established that it was 7 pages

she did not use the efits

But, as I've pointed out elsewhere, Cristobell, DCI Redwood did NOT say these two (very different) e-fits were drawn up by the Smiths. Indeed they COULD NOT HAVE BEEN, because none of the Smiths saw his face properly. We know from the Sunday Times and elsewhere that the e-fits were produced by 'the private investigators', presumed to be Halligen and Exton, and FWIW Exton says he helped to draw them up. No-one, but no-one, has said that the Smiths produced those 2 e-fits - and certainly not the Smiths themselves

and the McCanns have never held a press conference to publicise him,

1. They promoted him in a documentary seen by millions

2. They promoted him in a book and a Sun serialisation read by millions

3. They also promoted him on their 'Find Madeleine' website.

These are inescapable facts.

as they did with Tannerman. The McCann search has never focused on Smithman, due apparently to the fact that they could not afford to follow two lines of enquiry, so they stuck with Jane Tanner's sighting.

Clearly they did NOT stick just with Tanner's sighting, as the documentary, their website and the book make clear

Imo 'Smithman' has been a fly in the ointment for Kate and Gerry, one they would have preferred to go away.

That can't possibly be correct as they have promoted him as mentioned above.

I don't think I would describe anything the McCanns have done as 'promoting' Smithman Tony. I have always got a sense that he has been included because it would have been too suspicious to dismiss him altogether. For the first two years after Madeleine vanished, he barely got a mention, and I always remember newcomers to the forum I used to post on being surprised when they stumbled on the Smith family statements, as they knew nothing about it before.

Faux police press conferences were arranged to publicise the face (or non face) of the man seen by Tanner, but there were no such press calls for the Smith family sighting, which of course astonished those of use who were following the case at the time - the Smith family consisted of 9 people while Tannerman was seen by Jane alone. Going back into the moment, there were hundreds of discussions as to why the McCanns were not publicising the Smith sighting, and of course, at that time we had not seen the efits.

The efits can only have come from the Smith family Tony, there are no other eye witnesses. We have only seen the first statements of the Smiths, we have no idea what memories may have been retrieved under specialist interrogation. Releasing those efits last October was a huge leap in the investigation imo, it was not a step taken lightly, and it has not helped the McCanns one bit, the anti groups on the social networking sites had a huge surge in membership following DCI Redwood's 'revelation' moment.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 14:28

Tilly-flop wrote:BS has already posted a blog re TB and fleffer

LOL, guess we really shouldn't discuss that one :)

Although, I got an honourable mention as 'Cesspit trainee pump operator & disinfector', which after a few minutes I realised was not an insult ;-)

by galena 14.05.14 14:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
galena wrote:
But do we really need physical evidence of an abduction? Ben Needham just vanished without trace - and most people accept as a fact that he was abducted.
There are quite a few of us, however, who do not accept that Ben Needham was abducted

Actually I've always been pretty sceptical - but the vast majority of people probably still believe he was abducted by gypsies though as far as I know no swarthy abductor was ever glimpsed carrying him away. People on forums like this will be more sceptical but IMO the vast majority of people are pretty gullible. People do disappear off the face of the earth sometimes, and unless they turn up alive or dead it's difficult to prove what really happened.

Right from the start I was totally convinced that Jane was lying about Tannerman, put up to it by Gerry. But looking back I think it proved more of an embarrassment to them than anything else, especially after the first disastrous Crimewatch appeal. I'm having problems seeing where it fits into the jigsaw as a whole.

by jeanmonroe 14.05.14 14:47

1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?
-----------------------------------------------

(f) dressed only in pyjamas..

And IDENTICAL, according to JT, to the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' even though she didn't KNOW what pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' until Gerry 'told' her ( winkwink

), very, very much LATER, ( winkwink

) AFTER (

) her actually 'witnessing' the 'abduction event'!

WHAT are the 'chances' of THAT???

by Woofer 14.05.14 14:51

OFGS - Its no big deal that TB also posts under another name - it was always assumed by me that most people knew anyway. And its no big deal that he is sceptical about the Smith sighting. It can be discussed reasonably surely, rather than being sarcastic.

PS - not aimed at you JM

by noddy100 14.05.14 14:55

jeanmonroe wrote:1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?
-----------------------------------------------

(f) dressed only in pyjamas..

And IDENTICAL, according to JT, to the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' even though she didn't KNOW what pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' until Gerry 'told' her ( ), very, very much LATER, ( ) AFTER ( ) the 'event'!

WHAT are the 'chances' of THAT???

Also that teh bloke JT saw and the one the SMiths saw were both carrying a child of that age in PJs

by mariola 14.05.14 15:11

Woofer wrote:OFGS - Its no big deal that TB also posts under another name - it was always assumed by me that most people knew anyway. And its no big deal that he is sceptical about the Smith sighting. It can be discussed reasonably surely, rather than being sarcastic.

PS - not aimed at you JM

No sarcasm intended.He has been deceitful in using another name to bolster his argument against the Smith family evidence.
His claim that TM promoted the Smith sighting is ridiculous.
"In a time of universal deceit-telling the truth is a revolutionary act" George Orwell

by jeanmonroe 14.05.14 15:12

noddy100 wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:1. How likely is it that any single man would be carrying a child in Praia da Luz (a) at 9.15pm or later, (b) in the dark, (c) on a coldish night, (d) on his own, (e) without a pushchair/buggy, (f) dressed only in pyjamas, and (g) with no blanket or cover?
-----------------------------------------------

(f) dressed only in pyjamas..

And IDENTICAL, according to JT, to the pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' even though she didn't KNOW what pyjamas Madeleine was 'wearing' until Gerry 'told' her ( ), very, very much LATER, ( ) AFTER ( ) the 'event'!

WHAT are the 'chances' of THAT???
Also that teh bloke JT saw and the one the SMiths saw were both carrying a child of that age in PJs

But be fair, the chap 'Smithman', was a much BETTER 'parent' than Tannerman/Crecheman.

At least the child he was carrying had a LONG sleeve pyjama 'top' on, to keep the 'chill' out, as opposed to the child JT 'saw' who had a very, very SHORT 'sleeved' pyjama 'top' as paraded, and shown to the world's media, by G&K at their press conferences.!

by Guest 14.05.14 15:30

I see that 'Blacksmith' bloke has made a blog and copied the posts about the whole TB/Fleffer thing.

On twitter now as well.

Not sure what this Blacksmiths motives are.

by Guest 14.05.14 15:48

Andrew77R: it's quite obvious what BS's motives are.
When fleffer was posting a few weeks ago (can't remember the topic) it was apparent to me that it was TB posting. It's not a problem for me considering his history of the case and legal restrictions on what he can say. Thanks, TB for your hard work.

by Guest 14.05.14 15:51

It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him. Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic. ontopic

by Guest 14.05.14 15:55

Ladyinred wrote:Andrew77R: it's quite obvious what BS's motives are.
When fleffer was posting a few weeks ago (can't remember the topic) it was apparent to me that it was TB posting. It's not a problem for me considering his history of the case and legal restrictions on what he can say. Thanks, TB for your hard work.

Yes it was obvious that Fleffer was TB. Not an issue for me either. I admire the man's commitment and dedication.

Just don't understand why BS has got involved and by all accounts attacked this forum in the past.

I thought BS and the people on this forum were all singing from the same hymn sheet.

Anyway off topic. Apologies.

by tasprin 14.05.14 16:25

From what I remember of the Smith sighting it was first reported in the media back in 2007. It was the subject of much discussion in 2008. In one interview the McCanns were asked directly about the Smithman sighting but they dismissed it out of hand. The PJ inquiry under Amaral’s direction regarded the sighting as important but the McCanns actively ignored it. They eventually gave it credence in 2009 when they incorporated it into their documentary, ‘Madeleine was here’. However, the production made deliberate changes to Smithman’s appearance (effectively altering police witness statements) falsely giving viewers the impression that he and Tannerman were one and the same person. It took the McCanns two years to find a way to explain the Smith sighting, up to then it was strictly off limits. Over the years they have produced many e-fits of ‘suspects’ but they have never produced one of Smithman. Later that year, 2009, they suppressed Henri Exton’s e-fits of Smithman. Smithman was too expensive to follow up apparently - but he was oh so important in Kate McCann’s 2011 publication ‘Madeleine’. The fact she devoted several pages to Smithman, having studiously ignored him for the first two years after her daughter disappearance, shows how important it became for the McCanns to explain him away as Tannerman. Morphing him into Tannerman was the way to go. Jmo, but I think the Smith family are genuine.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 16:30

Yes, I agree with you tasprin, that seems to be an accurate account of the McCanns attitude towards Smithman. They couldn't completely ignore Smithman - that really would be telling. So they've had to work the sighting into their own little bit of mythology.

by Gillyspot 14.05.14 16:45

Not sure I believe in "Smithman" but I can't see an entire family (including youngsters) lying about it. Also IMO the McCanns' have done their best to confuse "Smithman" with "Tannerman" in the general publics eye (how child was carried, clothing etc) - Only THEY can answer WHY they have done this & I can't see this happening anytime soon.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 16:46

Andrew77R wrote:
...... and if they have done that. Then surely that is very telling. Smithman is not only real. Smithman is Gerry.

The Smiths were right all along.

Hooray to the Smiths.

My own theory and opinion

That's my opinion also. Who the person was carrying is anybody's guess at the moment though.

by Guest 14.05.14 17:01

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
...... and if they have done that. Then surely that is very telling. Smithman is not only real. Smithman is Gerry.

The Smiths were right all along.

Hooray to the Smiths.

My own theory and opinion

That's my take on it. IMO Who Gerry was carrying is anybody's guess at the moment though.

ETA - don't remember adding the 'IMO'! Surely 'that's my take on it' is another way of saying that its my opinion :) It isn't my opinion that 'that's my take on it', that doesn't make sense! ;-)

One of these:

"we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group."

(From BO'D's article, Guardian 14th Dec 2007).

by Guest 14.05.14 17:06

Ladyinred wrote:
whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
...... and if they have done that. Then surely that is very telling. Smithman is not only real. Smithman is Gerry.

The Smiths were right all along.

Hooray to the Smiths.

My own theory and opinion

Deleted

ETA - don't remember adding the 'IMO'! Surely 'that's my take on it' is another way of saying that its my opinion :) It isn't my opinion that 'that's my take on it', that doesn't make sense! ;-)

One of these:

"we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group."

(From BO'D's article, Guardian 14th Dec 2007).

You have changed your post now. The one in the quote is the original, look at what you said again..........you stated it as fact.

by Guest 14.05.14 17:11

candyfloss - is that message for me?

by whatliesbehindthesofa 14.05.14 17:13

candyfloss wrote:
You have changed your post now. The one in the quote is the original, look at what you said again..........you stated it as fact.

Aye, I realised and changed it, little too late though :)

by Guest 14.05.14 17:21

Ladyinred wrote:candyfloss - is that message for me?

No, not for you LiR

by mariola 14.05.14 17:25

candyfloss wrote:It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him. Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic.

Another name is understandable but it was the way it was used to create support for posts in his real name.That was devious and shames the Forum.I for one never knew it was the same poster.
What other "understandable" deceptions have been posted here?

by Guest 14.05.14 17:29

I have to say that I'd never even noticed Tony's other account until now and I assume that's the same for a lot of others too.

There are a lot worse things going on; let's move on please.

by tasprin 14.05.14 18:01

Gillyspot wrote:Not sure I believe in "Smithman" but I can't see an entire family (including youngsters) lying about it. Also IMO the McCanns' have done their best to confuse "Smithman" with "Tannerman" in the general publics eye (how child was carried, clothing etc) - Only THEY can answer WHY they have done this & I can't see this happening anytime soon.

I can't see an entire family lying either. Why would the McCanns ignore Smithman and then suddenly, after two years, make him pivotal to the inquiry by morphing him into Tannerman - even going so far as to change details of the sworn statements of those who had witnessed the sighting (surely that's perverting justice)? In my opinion IF the McCanns genuinely believed that Smithman was a stranger carrying a child that looked like Maddie, they would have publicised it in 2007. And they would definitely not have changed his description in order to match Tannerman - there can be no reasonable explanation for doing that other than Smithman wasn't a stranger. The Smiths seem to me to be an ordinary family who reported what they saw. That's all. The fact that some months later Mr Smith reported the man as looking like Gerry McCann because of the way he walked/carried the child, is not at all strange. Sometimes it's the physical mannerisms of people that stick in our mind - impressionists make a career out of them. People have different opinions on this, but I really can't see Mr Smith deliberately involving his family in this horrible circus; having strangers like Brian Kennedy knocking on his door and being followed around by the press etc.

by lj 14.05.14 18:15

jhansigirl wrote:Is it possible that the true purpose of OG was to obtain the information that was witheld by the PJ in order to make certain that there is nothing there that could/would
incriminate / uncover the real protected non-McCann person or persons? Or am I barking up the wrong tree?

Apologies if this ? has been asked b4?

ETA or even all the evidence files?

I am convinced that was one of the reasons. It is also (in my opinion) one of the reasons why they are so negative about the PJ: they still don't have what they want.